r2rtf
The clinical-report table engine learned Chinese, then learned to leave RTF entirely
Comparison · Analytics
crul vs rbmi
A side-by-side editorial comparison of crul and rbmi — release velocity, themes, recent moves, and the top alternatives to consider.
crul vs rbmi: at a glance
What is crul?
crul took mocking back from webmockr and made it a property of the client itself
crul is the R6-based HTTP client underneath much of rOpenSci's package stack, covering synchronous requests, three flavours of async, pagination and retries. Its 1.6.0 release in July 2025 changed where test mocking lives: each client — HttpClient, Async, AsyncVaried — now takes a mocking parameter at initialisation or per method, and the standalone mock() function is deprecated. Mocking used to be something webmockr switched on from outside; it is now a setting on the client.
What is rbmi?
Reference-based multiple imputation for trials, now shipping without Bayesian support by default.
rbmi implements reference-based multiple imputation for longitudinal clinical trial data with missing values — the estimand machinery regulators expect for handling intercurrent events and dropout. The consequential recent change was 1.3.0 moving rstan from a hard dependency to Suggests, which takes Bayesian imputation out of the default install. Since then the work has been documentation and nomenclature discipline: 1.6.1 standardized on MNAR over a mixed NMAR/MNAR vocabulary and deprecated the nmar.rm argument accordingly.
crul vs rbmi: editorial side-by-side
crul
0.0ANALYTICS
crul took mocking back from webmockr and made it a property of the client itself
◆ Current state
crul is the R6-based HTTP client underneath much of rOpenSci's package stack, covering synchronous requests, three flavours of async, pagination and retries. Its 1.6.0 release in July 2025 changed where test mocking lives: each client — HttpClient, Async, AsyncVaried — now takes a mocking parameter at initialisation or per method, and the standalone mock() function is deprecated. Mocking used to be something webmockr switched on from outside; it is now a setting on the client.
◆ Where it's heading
The async surface has been the growth area for years — retries reached Async, AsyncVaried, AsyncQueue and HttpRequest in 1.4, AsyncQueue gained the response accessors in 1.2, and 1.5.0 wired async requests up to webmockr. The 1.6.0 change reverses that direction of dependency, and it landed within a minute of webmockr's own release severing its tie to vcr. Read together, the rOpenSci HTTP stack is being deliberately untangled so each package can be used without the others.
◆ Prediction
With mock() deprecated rather than removed, the next major release is the likely point of deletion. Expect the remaining work to follow the same decoupling theme rather than adding request features.
rbmi
2.5ANALYTICS
Reference-based multiple imputation for trials, now shipping without Bayesian support by default.
◆ Current state
rbmi implements reference-based multiple imputation for longitudinal clinical trial data with missing values — the estimand machinery regulators expect for handling intercurrent events and dropout. The consequential recent change was 1.3.0 moving rstan from a hard dependency to Suggests, which takes Bayesian imputation out of the default install. Since then the work has been documentation and nomenclature discipline: 1.6.1 standardized on MNAR over a mixed NMAR/MNAR vocabulary and deprecated the nmar.rm argument accordingly.
◆ Where it's heading
The package is optimizing for adoption friction over feature breadth. Dropping a compiled Stan dependency from the default install, deprecating a bespoke seed argument in favor of base set.seed(), and aligning lsmeans() behavior and weight naming with emmeans all point the same direction — behave like a conventional R package rather than a specialized one. Documentation work in 1.6.1 covering @return on every exported function and executable examples reads as preparation for validation scrutiny rather than user demand.
◆ Prediction
Given the FAQ vignette's validation statement and the recent documentation completeness pass, the next work is more likely qualification and estimand documentation than new imputation methods.
Alternatives to crul and rbmi
Other Analytics products tracked by Sparkpulse, ranked by recent ship velocity. Each card links to a full editorial trajectory and lets you pivot into a head-to-head comparison with either crul or rbmi.
DoseFinding
New stewardship at openpharma, then two releases adding the methods MCP-Mod was missing
webmockr
The stubbing library added httr2 support, then spent a year cutting itself free of everything else
dendroNetwork
Six releases, six identical bodies — the feed carries the package abstract instead of release notes
chattr
chattr deleted every LLM integration it had written and outsourced the lot to ellmer
cloudml
Six years since the last functional change, and Google renamed the service it wraps in the release before that
Recent activity from crul and rbmi
Latest ship moves from both products, interleaved chronologically. ⚡ = editorial spark.
- 22d agorbmiMNAR nomenclature standardized, documentation completed
- 1y agocrulMocking becomes a client parameter, independent of webmockr ⚡
- 1y agorbmirstan demoted to Suggests, Bayesian imputation now opt-in ⚡
- 2y agocrulAsync requests become mockable through webmockr
- 2y agocrulDocumentation fixes and test helper tweak
- 2y agorbmirbmi v1.2.5
- 3y agocrulHTTP retries reach the async classes
- 3y agocrulClearer error for mismatched urls and disk lengths
- 4y agocrulAsyncQueue gains response accessors; results print as a summary
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between crul and rbmi?
They serve adjacent needs but don't currently overlap on shipped themes. rbmi is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 2.5 vs 0.0), with 0 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. See the at-a-glance table above for a side-by-side breakdown of velocity, recent sparks, and editorial themes.
Is crul better than rbmi?
Sparkpulse doesn't pick a winner — we score release velocity, not feature parity. rbmi is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 2.5 vs 0.0), with 0 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. For your specific use case, the alternatives sections above list other Analytics products to evaluate alongside.
What are the best alternatives to crul?
Top crul alternatives in Analytics are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "crul alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/crul for the full list with editorial commentary on each.
What are the best alternatives to rbmi?
Top rbmi alternatives in Analytics are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "rbmi alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/rbmi for the full list with editorial commentary on each.